Mexican citizens to decide PRESIDENTIAL USA election

PRESS RELEASE – LOUISIANA V. BRYSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT

Illegal aliens could alter the upcoming reapportionment of congressional districts

January 27th, 2012 Ed Nelson

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 3:00 P.M., 01/27/2012

LOUISIANA V. BRYSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT

Illegal aliens could alter the upcoming reapportionment of congressional districts
under a plan put forward by President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce who
authorized the Census Bureau to count foreign nationals in the 2010 Census.

Today, U.S. Border Control, Border Control Foundation and other organizations received the consent of the Clerk of the House of Representatives to file amicus curiae briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting an effort to prevent the Obama Administration from using a flawed 2010 Census that included foreign nationals in the count to alter radically the allocation of political power in the United States.

The amicus brief was filed in support of the State of Louisiana’s motion to file an original complaint against the Secretary of Commerce who oversees the Census Bureau. Louisiana took this unusual step of bypassing U.S. District Courts and filing this action directly in the U.S. Supreme Court due to the critical urgency to obtain a swift ruling.

In a shameful attempt to manipulate the census for political advantage, the Obama’s Census Bureau chief falsely claimed that the Constitution compels him to count “everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.”

The Census Bureau unlawfully counted illegal aliens and the President reported these flawed Census results to the House of Representatives as the basis to reapportion the House.

“The result of this corrupted census would be to reward those states that provide “sanctuary” and taxpayer funded benefits to illegal aliens with additional seats in the House of Representatives, while punishing those states that observe the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Edward I. Nelson, U.S. Border Control Chairman.

“If allowed to go uncontested, the State of Louisiana’s filing demonstrates that Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, and North Carolina would lose one representative each, while California and Texas would each gain two seats and Florida one. Even worse, since representation in the Electoral College is based, in part, on the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the composition of the electoral college will also be significantly altered.

“In a close race for the White House, this politicized and illegal census could deliver the presidency to the candidate that most favors illegal aliens, by giving additional electoral college votes to states like California.” said Nelson.

In addition to using the Constitution as the basis for our arguments, we also used a 1990 Supreme Court opinion that states emphatically that persons who enter our country in violation of the law are not entitled to the rights guaranteed to “the People.” If illegal aliens are not entitled to the rights of the American people, then they should not be counted in the Census, not have their illegal presence effect reapportionment or the electoral college.

Sources:
Louisiana’s compliant is available at: http://tinyurl.com/7hf4p5r
The amicus brief is available at: www.lawandfreedom.com
The U.S. Supreme Court Docket Sheets are available at: http://tinyurl.com/7kx6gul

For More information:
Edward Nelson, 703-740-8668, ednelson@usbc.org
William J. Olson, Esq., 703-356-5070

Source:

U.S. Border Control

.

Mexicans Abroad Encouraged To Vote In Presidential Election

The last presidential election in 2006 was the first time Mexicans expats had the right to vote, but just over 32,600 of the millions residing in the United States cast a ballot. The deadline for Mexicans to register to vote in 2012 is January 15.

December 27, 2011 · With more than 10 million Mexicans living in the United States, Mexico is trying to get more expats to vote in that country’s upcoming presidential election. This holiday season is the final push to get voters registered before the Jan.15 deadline.

Stewart Rhodes Discusses the NDAA on Coast to Coast (1/28/2012)

January 19th, 2012

What Congress Must Do to Fix the Damage of NDAA, and Deny the U.S. Government the Power to Wage War on Americans

There are  members of Congress now moving to repeal Section 1021 of the NDAA of 2012.  While a good start, simple repeal of the NDAA is not enough to undo the damage that has been done to our liberty, as I will explain below.   Congress needs to go a step farther and clearly state, in writing, that it does not authorize the use of military force, military detention, or military trial on U.S. citizens or lawful residents.   And it should go even farther and clearly prohibit any such use of the war powers on Americans.  Congress needs to slam that door shut.

What Congress Must Now Do to Fix This:

Right now, the President can claim that Congress has authorized him to use war powers and the laws of war against the American people, to kill them, detain them indefinitely, or to try them for pretended offenses against the laws of war.   To remove that supposed power, and stop it from being used on Americans, Congress MUST do the following:

1. Repeal.  Repeal Section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, or at least amend it to clearly state that nothing therein applies to U.S. citizens or lawful residents.  Frankly, it should have been considered as a stand alone bill, so a total repeal may be best, so they can hold actual hearings on how Congress wants to handle detainees, but in either case, wipe out any application to US citizens or lawful residents.
2. Deny authorization. Congress must clearly state that it does not authorize the President to use military force, military detention, or military trial against US citizens or lawful residents (and amend current laws, including the NDAA as needed to be consistent with that clear statement that Congress does not give such authorization).    Congress may need to say that any prior authorization, including within the 2001 AUMF, whether express or implied,  is hereby withdrawn, or state that Congress now clarifies that it did not intend such authorization in 2001. Whatever works best to make it bulletproof and not open to interpretation by any court as Congress giving authorization.
3. Prohibit use of the laws of war against Americans.  Clearly prohibit the use of military force, military detention, or military trial (except as to those Americans serving in the Armed forces) against any US citizen or lawful resident for any crime whatsoever, including any alleged violations of the laws of war.
4. Mandate a trial for Treason, before a jury. Congress must clearly mandate that a US citizen or lawful resident who is suspected, accused, or even “determined” to be levying war against the United States, or committing any belligerent act, or to be aiding and abetting the enemy, must be indicted by a Grand Jury, pursuant to the 5^th Amendment, for the crime of treason and must be tried for treason, before a jury of their peers (as required by Article III, Section 2 and by the 6^th Amendment), in a civilian court, with a requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court before conviction, as required by Article III, Section 3.

I will explain further below why all this is necessary, but the over-arching point is that Congress must not just say it does not give authorization.  It must also say a President cannot use military.  It is necessary for Congress to place the President at his lowest claimed war powers when it comes to US citizens and lawful residents, by not just withdrawing Congressional authorization for the use of war powers on US citizens, but by clearly prohibiting it.  Now, Obama would be forced to argue to a court that he has an independent power, as Commander in Chief, to use war powers on US citizens even in the face of a clear congressional prohibition against such use of war powers.

The reason that is necessary for Congress to go beyond merely repealing Section 1021 of the NDAA of 2012  is that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 has already, long before the NDAA of 2012, been interpreted by both the Executive branch and by the federal courts as authorizing use of military force and detention (and even arguably use of military tribunal) against US citizens.  The key case is the 2004 Hamdi decision, where the Supreme Court interpreted the 2001 AUMF as having authorized not just the use of force, but also military detention against U.S. citizens.   While the Court did not directly address military trial, the case it relied upon, Ex Parte Quirin (1942) involved an American citizen being tried by military tribunal, and when the Hamdi Court ruled that the US government can designate one of its own citizens as an unlawful combatant, that opened the door to the full spectrum of military power under the laws of war to be used against Americans.   In wartime, the President, as Commander in Chief, can do the following to an enemy:

THE POWERS OF WAR, Include the Power to:

1. Kill.  Use of Military force.  An enemy in wartime can be shot on sight, bombed, killed by missile, sniper bullet, etc.  And that enemy does not even have to be bearing arms.  The radio operator and mail clerk is as vulnerable to being killed as is the infantryman.  All are military assets and fair game.
2. Capture.  Use of Military detention
3. Trial by military commission or tribunal for violation of the laws of war.   Among the offenses against the law of war are: Not wearing a uniform or an insignia recognizable at a distance; not serving in a recognizable chain of command; not bearing arms openly.  These “violations” have obvious problems when applied to US citizens here in the U.S. – imagine an American with a concealed carry permit being charged with violation of the laws of war for not bearing arms openly.  It is an absurdity that is possible when the laws of war are applied to Americans.  Though the Hamdi court did not have to rule about the lawfulness of such a trial, remember that the Ex Parte Quirin case from 1942 that serves as the basis for all of this  involved a military tribunal being used against a US citizen.

The dangerous error of Supreme Court, first in the Quirin case, and again in the Hamdi case,  was in finding that such war powers can be used by the US government against its own people.  That is spectacularly in error.

Under the Constitution, any American citizen or lawful resident accused of waging war against the United States or aiding the enemy MUST be tried for treason before life or liberty can be taken from them, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent in Hamdi.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, states:

“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 states:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article III, Section 3 together clearly and plainly set forth what manner of trial must be used against a United States Citizen or lawful resident who is alleged to have waged war against the United States or to have aided the enemy in wartime – requiring a trial by a jury of their peers, in an Article III, civilian court, for the crime of Treason, with the extra evidentiary burden of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court.  Nothing could be more plain and obvious.

And yet, the federal courts have willfully ignored the Treason Clause, and also have willfully ignored the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th Amendments, pretending that the law of war can be used to circumvent all of those plain commands.

And even before the NDAA of 2012, two presidents have used war powers against US citizens.  The Bush administration detained two US citizens in military detention, Yasir Hamdi, and Jose Padilla.  Obama has begun to kill US citizens he has determined are unlawful belligerents).  So, the first two war powers, the power to kill, and the power to capture and detain have already been used by presidents and the US military against Americans.  And all based on the 2001 AUMF (or on a claim that the President can use such powers even without congressional authorization).

And that is why the boilerplate language in the NDAA Section 1021 that nothing herein shall be construed to expand the powers of the President does nothing – the Court has already interpreted the 2001 AUMF as authorizing the President to use military force and detention against US citizens suspected of being unlawful belligerents.

Likewise, the boilerplate that nothing herein shall be construed to change  the current law and authorities regarding detention of US citizens also does nothing to stop detention, because, again, the 2001 AUMF had already been interpreted as allowing for military detention of US citizens, with the Supreme Court, in Hamdi, also erroneously ruling that nothing in our Constitution prevents the US government from designating one of its own citizens as an unlawful combatant (same as an unlawful belligerent).

So, what did Congress do in the NDAA of 2012?

1.  Congress affirmed that yes, the Executive branch and the federal courts were correct to infer that the 2001 AUMF authorized not just military force, but also detention, and even trial.  Now Congress has made it very clear, in writing, that this was their intent back in 2001.  Where the 2001 AUMF contains no written authorization to use military detention and trial, and those powers were only inferred, the NDAA does contain that express, clear, written authorization to use:

1)      Military detention without trial for the duration of the conflict

2)      Trial by military commission, for supposed violations of the laws of war

3)      Rendition.  Turning “covered persons” over to a foreign country or to a foreign entity.

(in addition to authorizing the use of military force, which Obama has now used to assassinate American citizens)

So, by passing the NDAA of 2012, Congress not only affirmed the prior interpretations of the 2001 AUMF, but also added that what it REALLY meant to say back in 2001 was that the President could use not just military force, and not just military detention, but also military trial, and even rendition to foreigners, and the language “any person” means just that – it can be used against any person the President designates as a covered person.

And the NDAA of 2012 also expanded the written list of entities that could be targeted beyond those noted in the 2001 AUMF and for a different time (See §1023 (b)(2) “A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” Emphasis added).

A Legal Fiction – “We Didn’t Say Any of This Back in 2001, But This is What We Meant Way Back Then, So We Are NOT Expanding Powers, Just Clarifying The Powers We already Granted”

Why does Congress claim that the NDAA of 2012 did not expand the powers of the President?  Because it is operating under the legal fiction that all of the greatly expanded powers enumerated in writing for the first time in the NDAA of 2012 were, in fact, originally granted by Congress in the original AUMF in 2001, though nowhere mentioned in that original authorization, and thus, supposedly, the NDAA of 2012 does not affect existing law and authorities or expand the powers of the President, because Congress is pretending that it meant to grant all of these newly listed powers in the 2001 AUMF, though that original authorization makes no mention of the power to use military detention, military trial, or extraordinary rendition.  This legalistic, sophistic, “time travelling” legal fiction allows Congress to greatly expand the written scope of its AUMF, including adding, for the first time, written authorization to use military detention without trial, military trial, and even extraordinary rendition to foreign countries and entities, to include against U.S. citizens and lawful residents, while telling the American people that nothing has changed.   Such legalistic, retroactive, “time travel” is the height of deception.

Congress must now fix its error, and slam the door shut against any implied, interpreted, or inferred power to use the law of war on Americans.  It must pass a clear prohibition against the use of such war powers on its own people. Anything less is just not good enough in the current political and legal environment, where a sitting President is now killing American citizens from his secret snuff list, based on secrete evidence.

Stewart Rhodes

Founder of Oath Keepers and Yale Law School graduate

Kalispell, Montana

.

**Quick Links**

Patriot Coalition Breaks Media Blackout with LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE from Kansas State House!

Stewart Rhodes will be discussing NDAA both days

FRIDAY, JAN. 13, 2012 1:30p.m.-4:30p.m. CENTRAL TIME

“4th Annual Kansas State Sovereignty Rally”

Click here to watch–>(LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE HERE)

SATURDAY, JAN. 14, 2012, 10:00a.m. – 2:00p.m. CENTRAL TIME

“The Destruction of America: The Intolerable Acts”

Click here to watch–> (LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE HERE)

.

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

..

NDAA FOLLOW-UP AND FURTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

.

Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

.

Oath Keepers Launches National Effort to Recall and/or

Remove Members of Congress Who Voted for NDAA Military Detention

.

..

ACLU trashes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act

.

US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)

“He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

.

WARGAMES

(2010)

Video was captured  five military Black Hawk helicopter hovering over the US bank building along with four other OH-6 choppers, known as “Little Birds”. Buzzing over downtown LA, conducting what the LAPD has described as a special ops urban warfare drill.

(Jan. 25, 2012)

,

.

The perils of 2012, by Joseph E Stiglitz

The Perils of 2012

Joseph E. Stiglitz

2012-01-12

KOLKATA – The year 2011 will be remembered as the time when many ever-optimistic Americans began to give up hope. President John F. Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats. But now, in the receding tide, Americans are beginning to see not only that those with taller masts had been lifted far higher, but also that many of the smaller boats had been dashed to pieces in their wake.

In that brief moment when the rising tide was indeed rising, millions of people believed that they might have a fair chance of realizing the “American Dream.” Now those dreams, too, are receding. By 2011, the savings of those who had lost their jobs in 2008 or 2009 had been spent. Unemployment checks had run out. Headlines announcing new hiring – still not enough to keep pace with the number of those who would normally have entered the labor force – meant little to the 50 year olds with little hope of ever holding a job again.

Indeed, middle-aged people who thought that they would be unemployed for a few months have now realized that they were, in fact, forcibly retired. Young people who graduated from college with tens of thousands of dollars of education debt cannot find any jobs at all. People who moved in with friends and relatives have become homeless. Houses bought during the property boom are still on the market or have been sold at a loss. More than seven million American families have lost their homes.

The dark underbelly of the previous decade’s financial boom has been fully exposed in Europe as well. Dithering over Greece and key national governments’ devotion to austerity began to exact a heavy toll last year. Contagion spread to Italy. Spain’s unemployment, which had been near 20% since the beginning of the recession, crept even higher. The unthinkable – the end of the euro – began to seem like a real possibility.

This year is set to be even worse. It is possible, of course, that the United States will solve its political problems and finally adopt the stimulus measures that it needs to bring down unemployment to 6% or 7% (the pre-crisis level of 4% or 5% is too much to hope for). But this is as unlikely as it is that Europe will figure out that austerity alone will not solve its problems.   On the contrary, austerity will only exacerbate the economic slowdown. Without growth, the debt crisis – and the euro crisis – will only worsen. And the long crisis that began with the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007 and the subsequent recession will continue.

Moreover, the major emerging-market countries, which steered successfully through the storms of 2008 and 2009, may not cope as well with the problems looming on the horizon. Brazil’s growth has already stalled, fueling anxiety among its neighbors in Latin America.

Meanwhile, long-term problems – including climate change and other environmental threats, and increasing inequality in most countries around the world – have not gone away. Some have grown more severe. For example, high unemployment has depressed wages and increased poverty.

The good news is that addressing these long-term problems would actually help to solve the short-term problems. Increased investment to retrofit the economy for global warming would help to stimulate economic activity, growth, and job creation. More progressive taxation, in effect redistributing income from the top to the middle and bottom, would simultaneously reduce inequality and increase employment by boosting total demand. Higher taxes at the top could generate revenues to finance needed public investment, and to provide some social protection for those at the bottom, including the unemployed.

Even without widening the fiscal deficit, such “balanced budget” increases in taxes and spending would lower unemployment and increase output. The worry, however, is that politics and ideology on both sides of the Atlantic, but especially in the US, will not allow any of this to occur. Fixation on the deficit will induce cutbacks in social spending, worsening inequality. Likewise, the enduring attraction of supply-side economics, despite all of the evidence against it (especially in a period in which there is high unemployment), will prevent raising taxes at the top.

Even before the crisis, there was a rebalancing of economic power – in fact, a correction of a 200-year historical anomaly, in which Asia’s share of global GDP fell from nearly 50% to, at one point, below 10%. The pragmatic commitment to growth that one sees in Asia and other emerging markets today stands in contrast to the West’s misguided policies, which, driven by a combination of ideology and vested interests, almost seem to reflect a commitment not to grow.

As a result, global economic rebalancing is likely to accelerate, almost inevitably giving rise to political tensions. With all of the problems confronting the global economy, we will be lucky if these strains do not begin to manifest themselves within the next twelve months.

Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University, a Nobel laureate in economics, and the author of Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy.

.

.

.

.

The Next War – Mexico? by US Borders

U.S. Open Borders

News and Information about what is happening at the US Borders

January 14th 2012

The Next War – Mexico ?

January 14th 2012

---

Jeffrey Prather is a former DEA special agent and intelligence officer with 7th Special Forces and the DIA. He spent nearly two decades on the southwest border, in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Bolivia and South America.

Predictions of an Escalated Border War
By Jeff Prather

The Next War

In July 2010, less than an hour’s drive from the Mexican border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested one of their own special agents for selling the home addresses of her fellow agents to the Sinaloa cartel. Last May, instead of arresting drug traffickers, a Santa Cruz County sheriff’s deputy was busted for becoming one. FBI agents arrested Deputy Jesus Contreras, a six-year veteran of Customs and Border Protection, and another man, Ernesto Castro. The FBI arrested Contreras while on the job after 
Contreras actually used his own squad car to transport 5-kilograms of cocaine past the I-19 checkpoint while in uniform.The real statistics are anybody’s guess. Nobody knows how many moles are dug into departments, how many bribed inspectors, how many paid officers are still on the job, quietly looking the other way. Or for that matter how many times out in the bush, a Border Patrol or sheriff’s deputy runs into a drug squad who heavily outnumbers and outguns them, and they simply, as ranchers have for decades, ride on.

American police are the finest in the world. But they are simply unprepared to deal with the tactics, techniques and procedures of professional spies and trained soldiers.

The examples of espionage and corruption may have touched my own career as a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration. In Tucson 2002, immediately after being assigned the extradition of a major Mexican cartel leader I tried to meet with the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case but couldn’t. 
It was Friday and the gray, middle aged, divorced lawyer informed me he was jetting off to Mexico City to meet up with his young, leggy Mexican girlfriend–who also just happened 
to work for the Mexican Attorney General. He was removed from the case. But that was that. Case closed.And that is precisely the point. 
No one followed up on the questionable relationship because there was and still is no mechanism 
to do such things in law enforcement. In police bureaucracies, intelligence is limited to tactical information. The bad guys will be crossing this much dope at this place at this time. Real analysis of trends and predictions is rare.In U.S. Military parlance, it’s all about OPSEC (Operational Security) as in, ‘loose lips sink ships.’ Our intelligence agencies have entire departments devoted to CI (Counter Intelligence). But in law enforcement circles, OPSEC is often considered a nicety, not a necessity, and CI is simply unheard of.It’s basic human nature–people do what they are good at and comfortable with. Cops chase crooks, and they’re very good at it. Past experience has taught them how to handle “traditional” criminal enterprises, including mafia and gang activities. Unfortunately, those days are past.Today’s Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) are multi-billion dollar outfits that have the resources to outspend entire nation-states, much less the overwhelmed law enforcement agencies tasked to stop them. They have professional militaries and intelligence organizations: in many cases, former national military or intelligence officers 
who have traded in their meager government paychecks for something more lucrative.American police are the finest 
in the world. But they are simply unprepared to deal with the tactics, techniques and procedures of professional spies and trained soldiers.To understand the problem, you have to understand the history. Twenty years ago Columbians made a choice. They decided to fight for their country, forgo the easy money of drugs and challenge the drug lords. And they paid the price in blood: thousands of Columbian soldiers killed in action, hundreds of cops—along with scores of judges and attorneys—murdered.But then something happened. The Columbian cartels 
lost their monolithic status. Killed off, bought off, run off, or brought to justice, by 2009 many of Columbia’s most powerful drug lords were either dead or on trial, some even here in the United States.As a result the Columbian cartels were forced to rely 
more and more heavily on their Mexican counterparts for transportation, security and distribution. And, gradually, the Mexican cartel snakes ate their South American predecessors. The hyper violence and lavish excess of the South America drug lords gave way to their Central American cousins.The results have been horrific. Mexico is at war. Rival cartels and the Mexican military units are battling for control of the country—and for tens of billions of dollars worth of narcotics income. A process that began in Columbia decades ago has now culminated in civil war and the very real possibility that Mexico will become a failed state. In the last five years alone, more than 40,000 Mexicans have died in this internecine conflict. Tens of thousands more have been tortured, raped and maimed. The numbers are staggering and horrific.

JOIN US

Yes, U.S. Open Borders,

Stands with you to Secure Our Border. President Obama and the federal government has failed to do its job so we must stand united to protect America!

So how do we fight a war our law enforcement agencies cannot win?

One nation south, Guatemala is even worse. Guatemala’s murder rate is three times higher than Mexico’s. The drug cartels are completely entrenched; less than one percent of crimes are punished. The remorseless violence raging in Mexico and Guatemala can be laid squarely at the feet of the drug cartels and their puppets in both governments, governments that have been thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted by drug cartels dispensing billions of dollars worth of blood money.In Mexico, drug cartels are now in charge of huge swathes of territory, including large cities like Ciudad Juarez. Within their strongholds, cartels own the police, judiciary and prison system. They’ve bought, murdered and tortured government officials, police officers, journalists and citizens into silence. It’s an old choice in Mexico: Ploma or Plata–lead or silver. Take my bribe or my bullet.And in this sea of uncontrolled violence and blood, one Mexican drug cartel rose above all the rest: Los Zetas. Founded by former members of Mexico’s elite Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales (Special Forces Airmobile Group), Los Zetas also drafted-in former federal, state, and local police officers as well as “ordinary” Mexican soldiers. They also formed alliances with groups South of the Mexican border, including Guatemala’s jungle warfare specialists Los Kaibiles.Unlike American mafia and gangs, Los Zetas and their allies have the organization, training and discipline to destabilize an entire hemisphere. They have unlimited funds, unlimited access to weaponry and an army of more than ten thousand loyal members. And their ambitions know few limits. Already we are seeing their efforts to disrupt and influence Mexico’s national elections in 2012. Guatemalan elections are also in 2012, and in both Guatemala and Mexico there’s a very real chance that Los Zetas can stage a successful coup d’état.Los Zetas have continued to grow and expand even in the face of active U.S. government involvement in Mexico’s fight against the cartels. In 2010 the State Department sent nearly five hundred million dollars worth of weapons and equipment to the Mexican military. The crisis is so bad in Mexico that, just as in Afghanistan after 9-11, the CIA has quietly inserted paramilitary teams from their Special Activity Division in country and began training those who, they hope, are and will remain the good guys.But again, the problem comes back to the fact that our domestic law enforcement agencies are simply unprepared and unequipped to handle a threat of this magnitude and sophistication. The FBI has a long tradition of Foreign Counter Intelligence (FCI) and has, more than any other agency, been successful in sorting out and sifting through embedded cartel spies and corrupt cops. But, infamously tight lipped about internal operations, it’s impossible to tell how effective they’ve actually been and what and whom they’ve missed.It’s the classic problem when law enforcement tries to do intelligence work, or when an intelligence organization delves into police work; a conundrum I saw repeatedly while working in U.S. embassies throughout Central and South America the last twenty years: Evidence versus intelligence. Evidence is based upon fact. Intelligence is best guess. Evidence is presentable in court. Intelligence is not since it gives away your hand and endangers valuable, vulnerable and limited sources of that intelligence.So how do we fight a war our law enforcement agencies cannot win? And remember, this is just the beginning. Act one, scene one. Like a wolf pack tearing at a carcass, international cartels are aiming to create a corridor of violence from Columbia up through Central America and on into the U.S.. Drugs and slaves go north, guns and cash go south.Like chemotherapy, the cure may well be worse than the disease. How can the U.S. successfully fight gang infiltration, cartel espionage, and cartel armies? How can agencies with limited focus and resources fight organizations with unlimited ones? There is only one coherent answer, one clear way. Besides surrendering our border as the cartels want. And after 10 years of hard fighting in the Mideast, American veterans would never countenance it. The answer, the only solution is inevitable, unpleasant and unthinkable. But already the Pentagon is quietly planning for it.Our next war is Mexico.

.

Mexican Drug Cartel Beheadings Come to US

See Video

Three beheadings in two different states and they happened here in the United States, not Mexico.

Former DEA supervisor Phil Jordan says all three beheadings have cartel written all over them. They happened in Arizona and Oklahoma in the past year.

A murder mystery is now unraveling on a stretch of North Reservation Road in Tucson, Ariz. County workers found a headless man lying on the side of the road Jan. 6. The man’s hands and feet were reportedly missing, too.

Ex-DEA Agent: Mexican Drug Cartels Beheaded Three Victims On U.S. Soil In Last Year

Although the Obama Administration cynically insists for political gain that there is no evidence of drug cartel spillover violence from Mexico into the United States a former DEA supervisor begs to differ, and he insists that their most gruesome tactics including beheadings are occurring on American soil.

.

U.S. Holocaust Museum Rebuffs FDR Defenders

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sin of omission: Auschwitz

More evidence suggests President Roosevelt actively prevented the bombing of railways, and the Auschwitz death camp. International Holocaust Memorial Day is January 27.

By Martin Barillas

“There is now broad agreement among Holocaust historians regarding the question of David Ben-Gurion’s position on bombing Auschwitz,” said Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which had been urging the museum to study the subject in depth. “Roosevelt’s apologists can no longer use Ben-Gurion to whitewash the Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz.” The Wyman Institute has issued a study of its own, “America’s Failure to Bomb Auschwitz: A New Consensus Among Historians,” which will be made available this week on the Institute’s website, www.wymaninstitute.org/

Info: WymanInstitute

U.S. Holocaust Museum
Rebuffs FDR Defenders

Defenders of President Franklin Roosevelt’s response to the Holocaust have been dealt a major blow, as a study by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has rejected a claim they frequently have made regarding the U.S. failure to bomb Auschwitz.

This aerial photo of Auschwitz was taken by Allied reconnaissance planes preparing for bombing raids on German oil factories near Auschwitz in June 1944.

In numerous speeches, articles, and conferences in recent years, officials and supporters of the Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt Institute in Hyde Park, NY have claimed that then-Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion opposed bombing Auschwitz (for fear of harming prisoners). Roosevelt supporters have made the claim to deflect criticism of FDR for the U.S. rejection of requests to bomb the death camp.

But a two-year study by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, completed in January 2012, concluded that Ben-Gurion opposed bombing the camp only for a period of several weeks when he believed it was a labor camp, and then reversed himself when he learned more about the true nature of Auschwitz, and thereafter supported bombing. Ben-Gurion’s associates in Europe and the United States then repeatedly pressed Allied officials to bomb the camp.

“There is now broad agreement among Holocaust historians regarding the question of David Ben-Gurion’s position on bombing Auschwitz,” said Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which had been urging the museum to study the subject in depth. “Roosevelt’s apologists can no longer use Ben-Gurion to whitewash the Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz.”

The Wyman Insitute has issued a study of its own, “America’s Failure to Bomb Auschwitz: A New Consensus Among Historians.” Click here to see the Wyman study.

Among the many Jewish leaders who called on the Allies to bomb Auschwitz in 1944 were World Zionist Organization president (and later president of Israel) Chaim Weizmann, senior Jewish Agency official (and later Israeli prime minister) Moshe Sharett, veteran Jewish leader Nahum Goldmann, and Palestine Labor Zionist leader (and future Israeli prime minister) Golda Meir.

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
About the Wyman Institute
1200 G. St. NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-434-8994

Prof. David S. Wyman

The Delphi Technique

What is it? A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, such as the the “Alinsky Method“

What you need to know about the Delphi technique and how to diffuse it.
Anyone trying to problem-solve with a group needs to know this information.

The Delphi Technique: How To Achieve A Workable Consensus Within Time Limits

- by Lynn Stuter

he Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is “Lay, or community, participation in the decision­making process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the “Alinsky Method” (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The “change agent” or “facilitator” goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms “task forces,” “urges everyone to make lists,” and so on. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the “leaders,” the “loud mouths,” as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument ­ the “weak or non­committal.”

“This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well­trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes “sensible” whether such is warranted or not. “

Disrupting The Delphi

Note: The Delphi is being used at all levels of government to move meetings to preset conclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation, “facilitator” references anyone who has been trained in use of the Delphi and who is running a meeting.

There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when facilitators want to seer a group in a specific direction.

1.  Always be charming.

2. Stay focused.

3. Be persistent.

Always be charming, stay focused and be persistent. Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes the victim. the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It s called crowd control.

Note: Please refer back to Lynn Stuter’s paper for the full article and her description of how the Delphi Technique can be diffused.

What The Heck Is The Alinsky Method?

Being Used To Destroy Our Freedoms

Albert V. Burns

It is interesting, and EXTREMELY important to Americans, both as parents and as citizens, to clearly understand just HOW the “squeezing out” process takes place. It is a well defined, if not well perceived, process known as the “Alinsky Method” (which was derived from a procedure named as “The Delphi Technique.”) This method of manipulating people is based on the fact that people in groups tend to share a common knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics known as “group dynamics.”

In this process, one or more people known as “Change Agents” or “Facilitators” appear to be acting as organizers, “allowing” each person in the group to express their concerns about some program or policy under consideration. While this process is going on, people are urged to make lists or form into task forces. The Facilitator carefully notes which members of the group are leaders, which are “loud mouths” and which may be easily swayed to different viewpoints.

At a certain point, the previously friendly Change Agent begins to act as “devil’s advocate,” becoming an agitator. The process involves playing one part of the group against another, the “divide and conquer” technique. Anyone who is not clearly in accord with the Facilitator’s agenda is made to appear ridiculous, inarticulate, ignorant or dogmatic. The idea is to make these members of the group angry thus escalating tensions. The end object being to shut opposition voices out of the group.

“With the increasing demand for education reform, increasing agitation among the public and more and more grassroots research exposing the defects in our current government indoctrination centers, also known as public schools, more and more people are being exposed to this Alinsky method of maneuvering public meetings toward preset goals. Somehow, people walk out of public meetings wondering just what happened – how were their ideas and objections so neatly derailed. This consistent pattern of manipulation of public meetings is causing concern about the corruption of the very process of government established by our Founding Fathers.”

Note: Please refer back to Albert V. Burns ‘s paper for the full article.

Using the Delphi to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle – the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to “oneness of mind” (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, “oneness of mind” will supposedly occur.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is “community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”

Note: Please refer back to the Eagle Forum for the full article.

Sources:
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/alinsky_method.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Delphi_Technique.htm
http://www.expertprogrammanagement.com/2011/03/groupthink-examples-avoidance/

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

By Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich

In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel’s theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.

What is Groupthink?

Groupthink occurs in groups when individual thinking or individual creativity is lost or subverted to stay within the comfort zone of the consensus view. People’s common sense and ability to perform problem solving, make good decisions, and raise unpopular views are overridden by the desire for group consensus.
Groupthink can lead to teams making the wrong decisions and so project managers, program managers, and indeed managers at all levels need to be mindful of it. Groupthink is particularly prevalent in cohesive groups, groups with a strong leader, and groups working in isolation. A number of general techniques exist to avoid groupthink, along with a number of specific tools, including Nominal Group Technique and The Delphi Method.

What is Critical Thinking?

by Dianne F. Halpern

“Eveyone agrees that students learn in college, but whether they learn to think is more controversial.”

.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, 1770-1831  was the founder of the principles of Hegelianism or the Hegelian Principle of Thesis, Anti-Thesis and Synthesis. This is a principle used with varying modifications, by governments, business and/or anyone for that matter, when trying to change a personal or larger mental or physical state.
It’s slight of hand for the minds of the masses.

The Delphi method was originally developed in the 50s by the RAND Corporation in
Santa Monica, California. Today this techniques is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

It has been asserted that the word Delphi refers to the hallowed site of the most revered oracle in ancient Greece.  Forecasts and advices from gods were sought through intermediaries at this oracle.

Join Our Censorship Protest!

Join Our Censorship Protest!

by Jane Wells

Have you been paying attention to all the hubbub online about the proposed U.S. legislation (SOPA/PIPA) that threatens internet freedom? I wrote about it last week over on WordPress.org, but the gist is this: there’s a bill in the U.S. Senate that if passed would put publishing freedom severely at risk, and could shut down entire sites at the whim of media companies. Fight for the Future created this nifty video to sum it up better than I can.
Thank you!

http://vimeo.com/31100268

For you WP bloggers, there are two options: a “Stop Censorship” ribbon and a full blackout. The blackout portion will be in effect January 18 from 8am to 8pm EST, while the ribbon will be displayed until January 24. To join in please refer back to original blog for directions.

*This site will be in full blackout mode January 18th with a protest ribbon displayed until January 24th, 2012* 

---

 

 WEB GOES ON STRIKE

---

January 18th, 2012 is the largest online protest in history, to stop the internet censorship bills, SOPA & PIPA. Join in by blacking out your site and urging everyone you can reach to contact Congress now.

January 18th is going to be amazing. Sites are striking in all different ways, but they are united by this: do the biggest thing you possibly can, and drive contacts to Congress. Put this on your site or automate it by putting this JS into your header, which will start the blackout at 8AM EST and end at 8PM EST.

Press Contact

Email: press@fightforthefuture.org (Press only please!)

Otherwise email: team@fightforthefuture.org).

Phone: (508) 474-5248

Everyone: Prepare to Strike

Websites: How to Strike

Confirmed Participants:

PROTECT IP / SOPA Act Breaks the Internet

http://vimeo.com/31100268

Congress needs to hear from you, or this bill passes

The video above discusses the Senate version of the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). In the Senate the bill is called the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). SOPA has gotten more attention than PIPA because it was moving faster in the legislative process. But PIPA is just as dangerous, and now it is moving faster.

PIPA would give the government new powers to block Americans’ access websites that corporations don’t like. The bill lets corporations and the US government censor entire websites and cut sites off from advertising, payments and donations.

This legislation will stifle free speech and innovation, and even threaten popular web services like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

The bill is scheduled for a test vote in the Senate on Jan. 24th: We need to act now to let our lawmakers know just how terrible it is. Will you fill out the form above to ask your lawmakers to oppose the legislation and support a filibuster?

Online Directory for the 112th Congress

Senators of the 112th Congress  

SOPA and PIPA: Just the Facts

By Jared Newman, PCWorld    Jan 17, 2012 6:00 PM

The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act are getting more negative attention, as major websites such as Wikipedia plan to protest the bills with blackouts on Wednesday. Even Google will join the action, with a link on its homepage explaining why the company opposes the legislation.

SOPA and PIPA: The Basics

Media companies are always looking for new ways to fight piracy. They’ve tried suing individual users, getting Internet service providers to take action against subscribers, and working with the U.S. government to shut down domains based in the United States. But none of those actions can stop overseas websites such as The Pirate Bay and MegaUpload from infringing copyrights, or prevent Internet users from accessing those sites.

Enter SOPA, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PIPA, in the U.S. Senate. Both bills are aimed at foreign websites that infringe copyrighted material. The bills are commonly associated with media piracy, but may also apply to counterfeit consumer goods and medication.

Arguments for and Against SOPA and PIPA

Opponents of SOPA and PIPA believe that neither piece of legislation does enough to protect against false accusations. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues, provisions in the bill grant immunity to payment processors and ad networks that cut off sites based on a reasonable belief of infringement, so even if claims turn out to be false, only the site suffers. “The standard for immunity is incredibly low and the potential for abuse is off the charts,” says the EFF.

Who’s for SOPA and PIPA, and Who’s Against?

Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is the author of SOPA, which is backed by 31 cosponsors in the House. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) wrote PIPA, which has 40 cosponsors in the Senate. ProPublica has a visualized list of supporters in both the House and Senate. Continue reading article

Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is among the industry supporters of the legislation

Klamath Restoration Agreements

Klamath Restoration Agreements

Klamath Economic Restoration Act Introduced in Congress!

The Klamath Economic Restoration Act was introduced November 10, 2011 in the US Senate by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and in the House by California Congressman Mike Thompson deserves prompt Congressional action, said a growing group of bi-partisan supporters. A growing and diverse coalition representing tens of thousands of people including, ranchers, fishermen, Tribes, business owners, and conservationists say the Act’s collaborative solutions will end the ongoing water crises hurting Klamath communities that still have double digit unemployment figures (see partial list of Agreement supporters below).

Klamath Economic Recovery Actsupporters stress that many livelihoods are at stake and now is the time to settle long-standing water rights disputes and avoiding catastrophes such as the 2001 water shut-off, 2002 fish kill, and the 2006 commercial salmon fishing closure.

“When disaster hit and litigation got drawn out, we were challenged by elected officials to develop our own solutions to the water crises that have devastated our communities,” said Steve Kandra, Klamath Basin farmer. “Together we did it and we’re part of a strong and growing constituency that expects our elected officials to seize this opportunity to end the Klamath Crisis.”

The legislation’s bi-partisan recommendations are based on the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydroelectric Agreements, companion documents that were developed by farming, fishing, tribal and environmental groups with support from both the Bush and Obama administrations as well as Governors Brown, Schwarzenegger, Kitzhaber, and Kulongoski. Jeff Mitchell, lead negotiator for the Klamath Tribes noted, “This bill is a marked departure from past attempts by one interest group to strong arm one another. Instead we’ve set aside ideological debates and focused on protecting everyone’s interests collectively. It’s exactly the type of win-win policy Congress should embrace.”

The legislation authorizes the Administration to carry out economic development and restoration activities laid out in the Klamath Settlement Agreements. It also provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to determine whether four aging dams should be removed. The Agreements are designed to provide security to commercial fishing and agricultural economies that when healthy are worth more than $750 million a year to the region, and employ thousands of people in rural areas suffering from high unemployment.

“This Congress has the opportunity to solve the Klamath Crisis. Failure to act will mean more lost jobs and a continuation of the economic insecurity that is destroying our rural communities,” said Becky Hyde, an Upper Basin rancher.

Reflecting on the challenges of working with Congress, Glen Spain, representing the commercial fishing industry emphasized: “Our rural communities simply can’t afford to do nothing. That’s a recipe for another round of catastrophes like the fish kill and irrigation shut-off. We desperately need Congress to act now.”

# # #

The Struggle to Restore the Klamath

The Karuk, Klamath, and Yurok people have lived along the banks of the Klamath River since time immemorial. The river and surrounding forests have long sustained the people with an abundance of fish, game, acorns and more. Over time, the Klamath’s rich natural resources have steeply declined to the point that the Tribes can no longer sustain themselves.

At the same time, new communities and economies have grown to depend on the Klamath’s resources. In recent years, bitter conflicts have emerged between Tribal, agricultural, and commercial fishing communities. For many years neighboring communities challenged one another’s right to live and prosper in the Klamath Basin.

The pending Klamath Restoration Agreements mark a change to this approach and seek to reverse this trend.

We hope the information on this site helps others understand why these Agreements represent the best opportunity available to not only remove dams, but to restore the river while providing economic security to the Klamath’s struggling rural economies.   

Background

Located along the California-Oregon border, the Klamath is a unique River Basinhome to many diverse species of wildlife, as well as economically and culturally diverse rural communities. The Klamath River Basin is huge. Ecompassing over 12,000 square miles the Klamath River Basin is about the size of the state of Maryland. The Karuk, Yurok, and Klamath Tribes still harvest salmon and c’wam from the river for cultural and subsistence purposes, family farmers and ranchers use the river for irrigation of diverse crops, and coastal commercial fishing families depend on Klamath salmon to earn their living. For many years, these competing demands have led to uncertainty for all Klamath communities as dwindling fish runs and too many demands on limited amounts of water led groups to fight against one another’s interests. Fishing closures, fish kills, and irrigation shut-offs have resulted in a rotating crisis for Klamath communities.(video about Klamath Crisis)

In an effort to solve the crisis and provide for a more secure future for all the Basin’s residents, Klamath Basin stakeholders have produced two companion agreements that together represent a roadmap for the largest river restoration effort in US History while remaining sensitive to local economic needs. The Agreements were developed as an alternative to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s relicensing of Pacificorp’s Klamath dams but encompass issues beyond deam removal. Together the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydoelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) describe the removal of four large dams,a plan to balance water use in the Klamath Basin, and economic stability for all of the Klamath’s diverse rural economies. 

Reaching Agreement

Each Tribe is culturally unique yet the Tribes have worked collaboratively in recent years on a common vision — reconnecting and restoring the Klamath River. It is with this spirit of collaboration and common purpose that the Tribes along with allies such as the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and a variety of conservation groups began laying the groundwork for basin-wide restoration and dam removal in the late 1990s.

Although the state of the Klamath’s fisheries had been in decline for decades, three horrific events culminated in a surprising effort of inter-community collaboration. In 2001, for the first time in the history of the Klamath Irrigation Project, irrigators experienced a water shut off to protect recently ESA listed coho salmon and sucker fish. This left crops to wither and die in the fields and farm families to protest and litigate. In 2002, with the drought persisting, farmers were allowed to irrigate and a massive fish kill occurred leaving tens of thousands of migrating adult salmon dead in the lower Klamath. In 2006, low returns of Klamath salmon led to the near total shut down of the West Coast salmon fishery, leaving family fishermen without a way to make a living.

In the midst of this rotating crisis, the Klamath dams’ operation license expired requiring dam owner PacifiCorp to go through a detailed relicensing process. The three groups suffering either directly or indirectly from the steep decline in fish populations slowly realized that the dam relicensing provided an opportunity to craft a settlement that could balance water use, restore habitat, and put Klamath fisheries on the road to recovery.

Over the next several years, representatives from tribes, fishermen, irrigators, conservation groups, as well as local, state, and federal agencies, worked diligently on the details of such a plan. A major breakthrough came in 2007 when, after years of resistance, a new

management team at PacifiCorp agreed to joint settlement discussion, creating the opportunity to discuss terms for dam removal – a fundamental step in fisheries restoration.

The product of these collaborative efforts are two agreements – the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) and the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). If implemented, these agreements will bring about the most comprehensive river basin restoration effort in US history and serve as a model for resolving contentious struggles over resources in diverse rural communties. We invite you to support our efforts!

Remembering Petty Officer 1st Class Chad R. Regelin

Bronze Star recipient, Chad was credited with personally locating and destroying 24 roadside bombs, training 13 commando engineers in counter-IED tactics and fighting in more than 20 direct fire engagements. USO Sailor of the Year for 2011, Regelin was an explosive ordnance disposal technician with Mobile Unit Three in southern Afghanistan and was on his second tour of duty there when he was killed.

Petty Officer Regelin is the 1,865th American to die in Afghanistan … Ich hatt’ einen Kameraden

*Burial with full military honors will follow at the Northern California Veterans Cemetery in Igo*

Chad R. Regelin

The Liberty Tree

Dissent Gave Birth to this Nation

Flags Over Capitol at Half-Staff for Fallen Sailor

Governor Brown today has ordered that flags be flown at half-staff over the State Capitol today in honor of fallen U.S Navy Sailor Petty Officer 1st Class Chad R. Regelin, of Cottonwood, who was killed in action in Afghanistan last week.

Remembering Chad Regelin

 

Procession Route:

The funeral procession will begin around 12:00 p.m. Saturday Jan. 14th from Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints in Anderson.

The procession is expected to arrive around 1:00 p.m. at the Northern California Veterans Cemetery 11800 Gas Point Road Igo, Ca.

Below are Google directions of the procession route:

See Interactive Map

Video

Slideshow: Remembering Chad Regelin

 Petty Officer 1st Class Chad R. Regelin

 Guest Book

“I’ll lend to you for a little time,
A child of mine,” God said,
“For you to love while he lives
And mourn for when he’s dead.”

“It may be six or seven years
Or twenty-two or three,
But will you till I call him back,
Take care of him for me?”

“He’ll bring his charms to gladden you
And should his stay be brief,
You’ll have these precious memories
To comfort you through grief.”

“I cannot promise he will stay
Since all from earth return.
But there are lessons taught down there
I want this child to learn.”

“I’ve looked this world over,
In my search for teachers true.
In the crowds of this great land,
I have selected you.”

“Now will you give him all your love
Not think the labor vain,
Nor hate me when I come to call
To take him back again?”

NDAA FOLLOW-UP AND FURTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

January 4th, 2012

Michael LeMieux: NDAA FOLLOW-UP AND FURTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

Michael LeMieux * Unalienable Rights

-

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael160.htm

-

NDAA FOLLOW-UP AND FURTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

By Michael LeMieux
January 4, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Directly on the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that arguably makes US Citizens detainable by the military, comes the coup de grace in the form of a new bill called the “Enemy Expatriation Act.”

But before I get into this bill let me preface that with a few observations.

First, our nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty and self-determination. A belief that all men were created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights imbued within each of us at the time of our birth. We did not, and do not, derive our rights from government and therefore cannot legally have them taken from us by that government.

Second, as our Declaration of Independence states, the purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, and as important, they derive their powers from the consent of the people. I ask you to think upon the following question in light of the previous statement: If the government derives its power from the people, how can the government wield power that the people do not have? If the people do not have such a power then the government, on their behalf, cannot likewise yield such power.

Third, the federal government was created by consent and compact, a Constitution. Within that Constitution the branches of government were laid out, defined, and scope assigned. Each branch of government was given certain powers to act for the betterment of the nation as representatives of a collective set of nation states that recognized the need for a single voice in foreign matters and as an arbiter between the states to ensure regular trade and commerce between the states and settle disputes.

To ensure that the federal government did not go further than the prescribed powers they enumerated the legislative powers of the government to a few distinct areas (Article 1, Section 8). But they went a step further, to emphasize the point to the federal government and to put to rest some resistance within the states, that federal government would not stay confined, they added the Tenth Amendment stating: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Now I ask of you; with the enormity of our federal government, with its massive spending, size, and laws that reaches into every aspect of every citizen’s life, is our government today one of limited power? I think the answer is a blatant no.

So how does a government, such as ours, go from limited power that literally had no direct impact on the lives of the citizens of the states to one of tyrannical proportions? You cannot make improvements to your own property without permission and paying a tribute. You have the flow of toilets and shower heads dictated to you on what you can and cannot have. We have been using incandescent light bulbs for years but now the government is forcing you to use highly toxic, mercury filled, bulbs (for our own good). And the list of expansive government powers is as long as the list of government agencies and sub-agencies within the federal government. But it did not happen overnight.

We have heard from those of this administration that they do not want crises to go to waste. This is not a new concept – every major governmental expansion has been preceded by one crises or another, manufactured or real, it does not matter. Politicians know that they can take advantage of the public, using their positions of power, during times of national crises and pass laws they know they would not be able to do otherwise.

Inch by inch, nudge by nudge, taking more and more power with each passing legislative session until one day we will (have) awake to find ourselves living under an unconstitutional tyrannical government. I do not say this lightly, I have spent most of my adult life in the service of my country and have offered up my life if need be, but I am abhorred by what I have seen her become.

This brings me to this newest legislation by “our representatives” in Congress. This is Senate bill S. 1698, entitled as the “Enemy Expatriation Act.” This bill is two pages, a novelty in the age of 1,000+ page bills, and states (relevant parts):

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’’

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘(6) and (7)’’ and inserting ‘‘(6), (7), and (8).”

————— End of Bill

For those not familiar with legislative bills there may not be anything that stands out from the above bill wording – and that is by design. By just reading the words above, under the title of “Immigration and Nationality Act”, we see that this affects those people who are “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.”

One would reasonably conclude that what they are talking about would be those terrorist spies who come to America and gain citizenship and use that access to attack us, right? I’m sure that is part of the reasoning but who else is caught up in this legislation and would be affected by it?

Well if we look at the underlying US Code that it is modifying we see that the “who” this is targeting is (8 U.S.C. 1481):

“(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—“(Emphasis added)

Just as the wording was placed in the NDAA to include US Citizens here too you have to follow the crumbs of obfuscated law back to the source. And if you have any doubt that a national, born or naturalized, is a “Citizen of the United States;” Black’s Law Dictionary, Version 7 gives the generic and specific definitions. The common term national means simply “a member of a nation.” Then under the specific “national of the United States,” and this is who our laws are written for, it states “A citizen of the United States or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States… Also termed U.S. national; U.S. citizen.” In the eyes of the government the terms are synonymous.

This law could have been written to be very specific by stating that any naturalized citizen engaged in these activities would fall under this law, but they did not. Are they inept, stupid, morons? Some may think so; I think they knew exactly who they were targeting.

We have seen and heard from the Department of Homeland Security of persons they consider a threat to national security and to the government of the United States. They are returning combat veterans who would have the skill of arms and combat, single issue voters such as abortion, gun rights, 10th Amendment, etc., people with Ron Paul bumper stickers or gun rights bumper stickers, or people who believe in the Constitution. These people have been portrayed by the DHS, and the FBI as potential terrorists.

Let me pose a hypothetical scenario to you: let’s say that government X over many decades or even centuries has slowly become oppressive and tyrannical toward its own people and was operating outside of the lawful powers it was given by those people. After years of voting, replacing representatives, and using the governmental systems of change the government still gets worse and worse. One day a few sporadic individuals across the nation decided to try and stop this encroachment by whatever means necessary. How would that tyrannical government portray those individuals? As a terrorist? As a belligerent? Would they try and strip them of their citizenship so they would not have the protections of law and can be dealt with as enemy of the government – though they are clearly not enemies of the people, for they are of the people.

This is exactly what they are trying to do with this legislation. But what is even more insidious is that they state that because you strive to protect your nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that because you disagree with the government (not the Constitution) that you, by your actions have committed an “act of expatriation… [and] shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily.”

We have already seen the expansion of who the government considers a terrorist threat, which by the way include some retired generals and high ranking military personnel. Now they can just nudge the law just a little bit and have American citizens deemed enemies of the federal government, strip them of their citizenship and treat them as they see fit.

If at any time in our history we needed men and women to stand for what is right, not just what is easy, and to obey your oath to the Constitution of the United States, IT IS NOW! You did not swear to support a government, a general, a President, or any other person of any position, you swore and oath to Support and Defend the Constitution. Not a piece of paper but the ideals of Liberty and Freedom, the last vestige of true freedom upon the face of this earth

Now is the time to tell Washington they are wrong, they have overstepped their Constitutional authority and must stand down.

How do we do this? Through our state governments! We must phone, visit, email, write letters, create groups of concerned citizens and demand that they stop this continual infringement on the state and the people’s powers and pass laws that will make unconstitutional federal laws enacted within their boundaries a crime to enforce and arrest any federal agent trying to do so in your state.

The federal government has enjoyed a long train of usurpation of powers through legislative trickery such as what we have seen over the past 50 years, from both sides of the isle. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue it is a Liberty and Tyranny issue. If we do not fight this now through the peaceful channels left for us we will undoubtedly fight them in the most horrific way. I have seen the horror of battle first hand and we do not want this on our shores, but there is a groundswell that sees too much of history being repeated here that will lead to nothing good if we do not stop this now and return to the rule of law and the basis of the that law is the Constitution.

© 2012 Michael LeMieux – All Rights Reserved

-

Michael LeMieux is the President of Nebraska Oath Keepers and author of the book entitled “Unalienable Rights And The Denial Of The U.S. Constitution”.

You can order your copy here:

http://www.constitutiondenied.com/order/order.htm

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be “infringed” upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com

Read More Posts